Telangana High Court
M.D. S.C.C. Ltd. Hyd Another vs T.Ramesh, Knagar Dist. 5 Others on 29 December, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.1781 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
06.06.2007 passed in W.P.No.11096 of 1998 by the learned
Single Judge.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that four
employees of Singareni Colleries Company Limited came up
before this Court by filing a writ petition in respect of fixation
of their pay, as their juniors, who are respondent Nos.3 and 4
in the writ petition, were drawing more pay than them.
During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1
took voluntary retirement and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were left
and therefore, their cases were considered by the learned
Single Judge. The undisputed facts of the case makes it very
clear that petitioner No.2 joined the respondent/company on
03.10.1979 as Motor Mechanic Grade-IV and he was
promoted as Motor Mechanic Grade-V on 01.01.1982 and
further as Motor Mechanic Grade-VI on 01.04.1991.
Petitioner No.3 joined the services of the company on
01.12.1981 as Motor Mechanic Grade-IV and was promoted
as Motor Mechanic Grade-V on 01.01.1982 and further as
Motor Mechanic Grade-VI on 01.04.1991. Petitioner No.4
joined the services of the company on 04.12.1982 as Tractor
Mechanic Grade-IV and was promoted as Tractor Mechanic
Grade-V on 01.03.1983 and further as a Tractor Mechanic
Grade-VI on 16.09.1992.
The disputed facts reveal that respondent Nos.3 and 4
in the writ petition were appointed as apprentices under
petitioner No.1 and they have joined the services in the year
1981 and 1982 respectively. The facts also reveal that as per
the 1987 wage agreement, the General Manager, Singareni
Colleries Company Limited/appellant No.2 in the writ appeal
has fixed the petitioners' pay scale at Rs.115.48 and that of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Rs.118.90 and in those
circumstances, the juniors are drawing more pay than
seniors. It is certainly undisputed fact that the writ
petitioners No.2 and 3 were much senior to respondent Nos.3
and 4 and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge
has allowed stepping up of pay of the writ petitioners No.2
and 3. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge are as under:
"The only justification urged on behalf of the
respondents for differential wage fixation of the petitioners
and the respondents 3 and 4 inter se is that the fixation
was done under the National Coal Wage Agreement No.V
whereunder the basic pay of the petitioners was fixed at
Rs.94.12 and the basic pay of the respondents 3 and 4 at
Rs.97.66, on 1.3.1992. With regard to the 4th petitioner, it
is stated that he does not belong to the stream of Motor
Mechanic, but is a Tractor Mechanic. In any event the 4th
petitioner was promoted to Category-V in the Tractor
Mechanic stream on 1.7.1993 i.e., after the respondents 3
and 4 were promoted on 1.4.1982 to Category-V. The 4th
petitioner is therefore junior to the respondents 2 to 4 in
the cadre of Tractor Mechanic/Motor Mechanic Category-V.
In so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, even
on the basis of the facts stated in the counter affidavit it is
clear that they were promoted as Motor Mechanic Grade-V
on 1.1.1982 as against such promotion of the respondents
3 and 4 on 1.4.1982. These petitioners are therefore seniors
to respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Motor Mechanic-
V. On application of principles of equal pay for equal work
and in identical designation, which is an emanation of the
equality injunctions of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to pay on par
with respondents 3 and 4. There is nothing in the counter
affidavit which sets out a justification for dissimilar
treatment between petitioners 2 and 3 and respondents 3
and 4. It is a settled principle of the equality doctrine that
mini classifications based on micro distinctions are an
antithetical to equality. Clear and straight forward
distinctions having a rational nexus with the object sought
to be achieved can alone stand the test of Art.14.
From the averments in the counter affidavit no
justification is discernable for fixing the pay of the
petitioners 2 and 3 lower to pay fixed for respondents 3 and
4 in the category of Motor Mechanic Grade-V. These
petitioners are therefore entitled to the relief.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed in so far as
the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned. The respondents
are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners 2 and 3 on par
with respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Motor
Mechanic Grade-V w.e.f. the date on which the respondents
3 and 4 were given such higher pay fixation benefit, with all
consequential and incidental benefits as to arrears on such
refixation and in their further career prospects.
The writ petition is dismissed in so far as petitioners
1 and 4 are concerned."
In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Single Judge was justified in granting stepping up of pay in
favour of writ petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (respondent Nos.1 and 2
in the writ appeal) at par with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the
writ appeal in the category of Motor Mechanic Grade-V from
the date they have given higher pay scale in the cadre of
Motor Mechanic Grade-V. This Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. The other important aspect of the case is that
all the respondents/writ petitioners have attained the age of
superannuation long back and they are no longer in service.
The appellants are granted three months time to implement
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
29.12.2021
ES
